Hi, On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 04:19:55PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022, Thomas Huth wrote: > > On 10/02/2022 20.48, Zixuan Wang wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:36 AM Sean Christopherson <seanjc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, Zixuan Wang wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:05 AM Alexandru Elisei > > > > > <alexandru.elisei@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 05:25:46PM +0000, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 10, 2022, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > > > > > > > I renamed --target-efi to --efi-payload in the last patch because I felt it > > > > > > > > looked rather confusing to do ./configure --target=qemu --target-efi when > > > > > > > > configuring the tests. If the rename is not acceptable, I can think of a > > > > > > > > few other options: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find --target-efi to be odd irrespective of this new conflict. A simple --efi > > > > > > > seems like it would be sufficient. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Rename --target to --vmm. That was actually the original name for the > > > > > > > > option, but I changed it because I thought --target was more generic and > > > > > > > > that --target=efi would be the way going forward to compile kvm-unit-tests > > > > > > > > to run as an EFI payload. I realize now that separating the VMM from > > > > > > > > compiling kvm-unit-tests to run as an EFI payload is better, as there can > > > > > > > > be multiple VMMs that can run UEFI in a VM. Not many people use kvmtool as > > > > > > > > a test runner, so I think the impact on users should be minimal. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Again irrespective of --target-efi, I think --target for the VMM is a potentially > > > > > > > confusing name. Target Triplet[*] and --target have specific meaning for the > > > > > > > compiler, usurping that for something similar but slightly different is odd. > > > > > > > > > > > > Wouldn't that mean that --target-efi is equally confusing? Do you have > > > > > > suggestions for other names? > > > > > > > > > > How about --config-efi for configure, and CONFIG_EFI for source code? > > > > > I thought about this name when I was developing the initial patch, and > > > > > Varad also proposed similar names in his initial patch series [1]: > > > > > --efi and CONFIG_EFI. > > > > > > > > I don't mind CONFIG_EFI for the source, that provides a nice hint that it's a > > > > configure option and is familiar for kernel developers. But for the actually > > > > option, why require more typing? I really don't see any benefit of --config-efi > > > > over --efi. > > > > > > I agree, --efi looks better than --target-efi or --config-efi. > > > > <bikeshedding> > > Or maybe --enable-efi ... since configure scripts normally take > > "--enable-..." or "--disable-..." parameters for stuff like this? > > </bikeshedding> > > I don't hate it :-) It'll also future-proof things if we ever make UEFI the > default for x86. Thank you all for the feedback. I'll respin the series and rename --target-efi to --enable-efi. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
